...puh-lease. Paul Greengrass is a brilliant director of action. One of the very best. And as for it being the "same plot"...of course it was. That's the point. The three movies ran in direct succession, half of the third overlapping with the second. Sheesh. Talk about thick.
I guess Roger Moore Bond is more your speed, huh?

These trailers really make this flick look like a mashup of YOLT, TWINE, VTAK, and M:I.
NOC List? Check.
Bomb in MI6 HQ? Check.
Someone settling a score with M? Check.
Bond faking own death? Check.
Awesome actor wasted on silly villain? Check.
I really would have preferred a continuation of the Quantum storyline, especially if it were to confirm that Quantum is the successor to SPECTRE.

Ive seen all 3 Bourne movies, I honestly couldnt recall one *brilliant* action sequence. Quick cut shaky cam crapola -the bane of this last decades action films and it began with Bourne.
Plus the Bourne films always seem to be Matt balsa wood Damon versus the American govt. Theyre so po faced serious with a streak of self loathing. And yes - probably the worst ever Bond movie WAS indeed based on the Bourne formula. That should tell you why it was the worst ever Bond movie!!
I dont hate the Bourne films, theyre actually pretty decent - but Bond beaters they are most definitely not.

If you call cameras being strapped onto two actors noses pointing up, then asking the actors to fight, and then using the resulting footage to edit, and you cal that a fight scene, then Paul Greengrass is an awesome action director.
I think however, he is a shite director who uses cheap tricks because he can't shoot action from a reasonable distance so we can see WFT is going on and who is hitting who!!

...you dumb bastard. They were a CONTINUATION OF THE SAME STORY. Duh. I don't know how much simpler I can make that for ya.
I'm sorry there weren't enough costume changes, cartoon villains and snappy one-liners for you morons. That the kinetic camera work gave your poor, simple little brains trauma.
Myself and most of the clued-up movie-going public can see them for what they are. A re-invigoration for the "Spy" gebre and THE ONLY REASON THESE NEW BOND MOVIES EXIST.

Trailers give too much shit away these days, that would have been a nice surprise in the film. But, I'm still there too see it, without a doubt. I hope he parachutes from a helicopter in this at some point :)

July 31, 2012, 10:17 a.m. CST

by Cobra--Kai

The personal palmprint on the gun is a cool old idea that I first saw in Judge Dredd (all the Judges lawgiver handguns will only work with the judge).
I can see that kind of personalization catching on and soon, maybe not with palmprints but perhaps with some kind of voice recognition software being required to take the safety off a handgun.

I've seen a ton, but they slip from my mind the second their over. I think it's because Bond doesn't really go through any kind of real arch in the films...he's just...Bond. They're silly movies and they never stick to my memory.

I loved Casino Royale and although Quantum of Solace wasn't on the same level, I still enjoyed it mostly for Craig's Bond. I realize we've only seen trailers, but so far Skyfall is looking fantastic. Looking forward to seeing if the movie holds up.

So far, the current M has:
- Allowed two bombs into MI6 headquarters.
- Lost MI6's NOC list.
- Attracted vengeance from a couple of supervillians.
- Allowed herself to become emotionally invested in her top agent.
She's fucked up her job left, right, and centre.
Why even bother with the fucking "M" alias if all the bad guys know who she is?!
Nobody ever went gunning for revenge on Bernard Lee or Robert Brown, and nobody ever slipped a bomb into the Universal Exports offices either!
Gee whiz, M gets to keep her job, and yet the Murdochs were called before parliament because they listened in on some celebrity voice mails! You call that justice?!

...they can't sack M - she's a woman and the lefties would be up in arms for unfair dismissal/discrimination etc...
Besides, the way consecutive governments in this country have continually fucked up anything to do with intelligence, computers, budgeting and generally organising anything including and above a piss-up at a brewery and letting those responsible get away with it, she's probably considered at the top of her game.
Wouldn't be surprised if M had a hand in the Olympic security farce recently.

Sam Mendes is destined for a Bond film, a truly sophisticated director who's theater works transfers well to film.
It's amazing that the director American Beauty and Road to Perdition is doing Bond, and it makes a bunch of sense to me.
The script doesn't need to be great, just good, like Casino Royale's, that benefited from Paul Haggis coming in.
Hopefully, this story is a classic Bond one with a classic Villain in Bardem, who should be able to be great just with his ability.

Sam Mendes is destined for a Bond film, a truly sophisticated director who's theater works transfers well to film.
It's amazing that the director American Beauty and Road to Perdition is doing Bond, and it makes a bunch of sense to me.
The script doesn't need to be great, just good, like Casino Royale's, that benefited from Paul Haggis coming in.
Hopefully, this story is a classic Bond one with a classic Villain in Bardem, who should be able to be great just with his ability.

If you took all of the action scenes from the second and third Bourne and edited them together into a nifty montage- it would LOOK LIKE SHIT!
Incomprehensible mess. Appreciate visuals and asthetics and the geography of a scene before spouting off BEST ACTION DIRECTOR EVER. He's not by a long shot.

Ohhh, wasn't Bourne that guy who spent his entire 6 hours of fame going "Wahhhhh, leave me alone, leave me alone, I don't want to be a ruthless government assassin anymore" after he got an unexpected lobotomy courtesy of his latest target because he was too shit to complete his mission?

Instead of making Q some kid from the IT support hotline, they should have made him a badass army soldier with a career-ending injury.
Remember, Q was a Major in Her Majesty's Armed Forces. This new kid doesn't look like an army Major to me.
Imagine, a big tough guy with an SAS background, whose career-track is headed towards the double-0 program. Some terrible incident results in an injury which cuts his career plans short, so he becomes the quartermaster for the double-0 program instead.
Some badass actor, walking with a cane, carrying a chip on his shoulder, which is why he's such a dick to 007 all the time.
It woulda been so much better than a white version of Moss from The I.T. Crowd.

So, to recap, it appears to be a mashup of:
- You Only Live Twice
- The World Is Not Enough
- Goldeneye
- Mission Impossible
- Mission Impossible 2
All with a douchey version of Q, an incompetent M and a really stupid-looking villain.
I am not optimistic, and I'm a QoS apologist!!!

does it really ruin the movie if parts of it reminds you of older movies? If someone has made a movie with an ex-agent as the villain before does that mean other people can revisit that idea? and possible do it a whole lot better? The argument is baseless and for trolls only.

does it really ruin the movie if parts of it reminds you of older movies? If someone has made a movie with an ex-agent as the villain before does that mean other people can revisit that idea? and possible do it a whole lot better? The argument is baseless and for trolls only.

so what if he's wearing gloves and the bad guys get the jump on him? he's fucked? what if he can't get his palm on it just his fingertip on the trigger? bollocks.
and yes all that stuff about noc lists etc and javier is playing the joker???

These fat fucking, mothers basement dwelling trolls on this site just love to find any reason to bitch about a movie. No one will ever make them happy, so best just to ignore them.
Theres no way anyone can look at that trailer and say "Oh that looks awful". There were some beautiful shots and iconic imagery going on left and right.
Film fans should be happy that we get Craig, Fiennes and Bardem in a Sam Mendes directed movie regardless of what it is or about.

Big James Bond fan here: Raised on the movies, read the books -- not only the Fleming novels, but books *about* James Bond movies and books.
Does anyone know what Ian Fleming's favorite song was? I do. I'm that big of a James Bond nerd.
So my misgivings about all the SKYFALL stuff and Daniel Craig is the fact that he's so pissed off. All the freaking time.
First he was pissed off in CASINO ROYALE because he was a new and thuggy. Then he was pissed off in QUANTUM OF SOLACE because his girlfriend was killed. Now he seems pissed off because he had to go underground or something.
In the words of Billy Crystal "It's not funny. It's not fun."
Sure, Fleming's Bond was not a barrel of monkeys, but I think Craig's anger is actually becoming a drag. And based on the trailer, the idea of seeing this movie is a bit...fatiguing.

I know his Bond's "look" has always been criticized by some, but I've never really had any problem with it. However, I'm honestly shocked by how bad he looks here. Even with his hairline retouched, he's lost a lot of hair and appears to have aged ten years since the last film. Hell, even since last year's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo.
A co-worker saw me watching this and asked if Craig had been seriously ill and that's why there hadn't been a new Bond movie in a long time. She thought he might have been undergoing chemo!
(The scene where he's talking with Q is particularly shocking. Remember, this is a man who is still younger than Brosnan in Tomorrow Never Dies or Moore in Live and Let Die!)

I included an exclamation point to convey how absurd/surprising I thought the chemo suggestion was- not because I felt there was any truth to it. Not sure what else I could've done there, as "LOL" would've made it seem too much like snark.
Regardless, I'm still shocked by how drastically Craig has aged. He's at the age where another film or two should be a given. Instead, he's already flirting with that "one too many" look Connery and Moore had at the end.

No, I'm not suggesting he looks as old as Moore did in AVTAK, but I also don't think it's as simple as trying to make the character look haggard and run-down.
Dalton and Brosnan both had their share of looking like Bond had been through hell, but it never felt like they had significantly aged in between films. (The closest either came would probably be Dalton's slick-backed- and visibly receding- hairstyle in LTK.)

There's no denying the Bourne trilogy was the most influential action series of the 2000s. For better or worse, everyone from Batman to Bond took a cue from them. I don't see how anyone could objectively watch a film like Quantum of Solace and not see Bourne's influence all over the place.
For that matter, it's been a very long time since the Bond franchise was THE trendsetter everyone followed. As early as Diamonds Are Forever (or possibly even You Only Live Twice), the franchise was starting to copy the very spy craze it had invented. Since then, the series has veered from one fad to the next, acknowledging everything from blaxploitation and kung fu cinema to Miami Vice and Ethan Hunt.
It's difficult to tell what to make of Skyfall at this point. They clearly want to get back to the general spirit of something like Goldeneye, but at the same time, seem reluctant to do so.

Skyfall was shot with Sony's new ultra-high resolution 4K digital cameras. Higher def will make anyone older (and show the flaws in their skin) and what have you. Daniel Craig looks suitably rugged for a lethal spy in her Majesty's Service. Pierce Brosnan looked old and bloated for Die Another Day so don't even start.

... the connery flicks were cool, a little sophisticated, at least mostly (I'm looking at you diamonds Are forever), Lazenby's was definitely a more stark and brutal flick, Moore's were lighter and tilted more toward fantasy elements, Dalton's... well, they were basically the same exact team behind the Moores, but I still think they stand up (though License to Kill needed a director with a darker, grittier style), Brosnan's were where they largely made their mistakes, in that they were constantly trying to recall styles and elements of earlier movies in the franchise, and he never really got the Bond movie he deserved. The Craigs are darker and brutal. Trying to mirror at least a little of what today's world is like. Who knows where they'll go next.

Better pacing, better cuts, better music...I don't get whether studio marketing has contempt for us here in the U.S. or for foreign audiences or who they think they're dumbing it down to, but give us the good trailers too.

And I'm liking the new Q too. He might not be a major, but he's definately a 21st century Q branch guy. Lets see how Wishaw does before we start with the newfag stuff.
As a 38 year old Brit, I have grown up worshipping Bond, and I love Craigs take on him. Perfectly in keeping with the mythology. It's a character that offers the actors a few ways to play him. So every new iteration is always fun to watch.
Bond used to be as much stand alone films, as an over arcing story. This one is a stand alone, apparently. And Bardem looks like he will be an excellent addition to the OTT villain in 007's back catalogue.
Looks well shot, polished, and Craig looks hard as fuck. Fingers crossed, and keep calm and carry on.

Like, Judi Dench's M gets the heave-ho due to one too many embarrassments for the government, and so the Minister replaces her with a humourless, overly-risk-averse, career bureaucrat.
Imagine a deadly serious version of Sir Humphrey Applebee from Yes Minister, or Eugene Kittridge with a British accent.
The new M, of course, does not get along well with 007.
Even better would be a power-struggle between Fiennes and somebody else within British Intelligence, much like the dynamic between Julian Glover, Ian Richardson, and Michael Caine in The Fourth Protocol.

Maybe you should consider all the smoking, drinking and Hollywood parties that Craig attends. His behind-the-scenes lifestyle may be catching up to him, but it still hasn't put a hamper on his performance as an actor.

Who am I?
BLURRY FIGHT SCENE
I'm looking at you in your office.
Repeat for three movies.
Yes, the new Bond movies take from the Bourne movies like a lot of action movies have, unfortunatly.
At least Pierce Brosnan had some style.
AND WOULD YOU FUCKS FIX THIS GODDAMNED TALKBACK? HOW MUCH COULD IT COST TO BRING IT UP TO THE 21ST CENTURY?

It could be a result of all the weight fluctuation he's undergone in recent years. Craig always had a small build until bulking up for Casino Royale, and still has a tendency to return to it for non-Bond roles.
Consider how thin he appeared in Cowboys and Aliens, only to turn around and gain a lot of excess weight for his role in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Then he followed that by bulking up again for Skyfall.
It's the kind of thing that's easier to get away with in your 20s or 30s. (Think of how much Christian Bale experimented with weight in the past decade.) After a certain point, all that additional stress begins to take a much heavier toll.

I guess you're not too smashed yet.
Anyways, good point. I once read the producers saying they would never have a director out shadow Bond. That's why they've always gone with good, but journeyman directors for every shoot.
I always thought Mendes was out of that mould, but I was reminded that, in the blockbuster, big money circles, he's not really all that. So a great fucking coup that get him for Eon. Really good director, but not an A lister director.
But that same formula means that we will never get a Spielberg, or Nolan version of Bond. Which franky, is a damn, bloody shame!

Yes, it is surprising that the current producers are still afraid to take chances, especially considering how the 007 brand name alone is enough to sell each film.
Mendes is actually the third time we've seen them go down the "dramatic director" route, as Michael Apted was hired for the same reason on The World Is Not Enough. (Ironically, another film that featured M's past coming back to haunt her, MI6 being attacked, and Bond being injured on a mission.)

Either one that fires five seconds after the trigger is pulled or one that fires backward if the wrong person gets hold of it. Hell, Derek Flint probably had a trick gun too. Gimmick guns have been around since the days of saloon poker when guys would add springs to their holsters for faster retrieval or the wrist mounted hide-away derringer.

they want a Bond who they can fantasize fucking them. and of course, in the fantasy, they are a hot woman.
i'm not judging. just saying. if you are upset that Bond isn't a pretty boy, then you are gay. i just think you should be more honest about it and say that you are upset that 007 isn't pretty enough for you to want to fuck.

Actually, the description of a 20-something Bond is exactly how Casino Royale was originally presented back in 2005. It's how both Martin Campbell and Michael Wilson described their intent for the reboot, which is why a 22-year-old Henry Cavill came so close to landing the role.
I don't get the impression anyone is suggesting Bond can't be older, though. Most of the comments just seem to be pointing out how much Craig appears to have aged, which is always a valid observation for people in the public eye. For example, much was made of how youthful Tom Cruise appeared in MI4, despite being almost 50.
And it IS surprising to see how much Craig has aged in just four short years, especially when you compare him to previous Bond actors at the same point in their respective tenures. (It's also slightly ironic, since Brosnan's age was one of the main reasons given for why he shouldn't have been allowed to return for a 5th movie.)

As for female nudity, I believe The Living Daylights was the first (only?) Bond film to show any, but just as a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment. I want to say it was the result of a tent blowing away in Afghanistan or Bond ripping a sheet off someone in bed, but recall for certain. (I'm also not sure it remained intact for home video releases.)

Maybe once back in the day but there hasn't been more than 3 movies with shots of boobies in a PG-13 movie since Titanic. And even that was just one boob. I mean you can extrapolate but come on. Boobies used to be plentiful in PG movies. It's a sad state of affairs.

He does appear suddenly a bit older, but then, it's been 7 years since his first Bond outing, hasn't it?
Sure, the other Bonds perhaps aged better in the skin department, but having wrinkles doesnt necessarily mean your BODY is aging worse than others - in some cases, very wrinkly people are, in terms of muscular/skeletal/vascular health, considerably younger than people who have thicker skin which doesnt age so rapidly.
William Shatner looks much younger than Leonard Nimoy, though they're roughly the same age, and certainly doesnt look 81 - but I'll bet you anything Nimoy's in far better health under the skin.
What I'm getting at is just this - not everyone has the same skin type - some, particularly Asians, tend to have a skin type that retains a youthful appearance well into life - many Western Europeans, fair skinned individuals like Craig, have thinner skin that creases much more readily and sags more.
I'm going to be 29 this year - and I look, for all intents and purposes, exactly the same as I did 10 years ago when I graduated high school- people mistake me for 18/19 all the time. Other guys my age look much older than me - it's just genetic. When I'm 50, I'll look 35 or so. Younger, if I had access to skin care like Cruise does.
OR...maybe he's ill. My grandfather had all his hair color well into his 60's...then he got cancer and rapidly started greying when it took hold on him, and started aging much more noticeably.

He needs to be a part of this franchise in some way. Even if he doesn't end up being the next Bond and we see him as a character in the next Daniel Craig feature. He BELONGS in a Bond film. He'd make a great villain but he'd likely steal the show! I also think Chris Nolan would be a good prospect for the next Bond director. What do you think?

and my faith in Mendes went up a notch. Javier Bardem looks the business here - although he looks very much like a clone of himself in the close-ups...Freaky! Will probably out-act everyone as usual. Fantastic actor.
It's more than likely that M will bite the bullet and Ralph Fiennes will be her successor. Can't think of anyone better to carry the torch.
Agree with some of the other posts about Fassbender: He would be a worthy candidate as Craig's replacement - though i think he would need to gain a few more pounds, but a solid choice.

At least Vesper implies that, which is as close as we're likely to get to a backstory? Saying that, Skyfall does feature as scene with Bond at the family house and at his parents graves, so who knows what else we might find out. Hopefully not too much.

I mean yes it borrows from other spy movies! There's nothing wrong with that. I'm excited to see this, and I loved Casino Royale, QoS gets way too much heat it was still pretty good. And I can't wait for this one.

Hopefully Fassbender does NOT be a villain, as then his prospect as Bond is gone. But he would make a great villain as well :)
And yes, Nolan would do a great Bond film (as long as the script is awesome).

But he seems to look even more haggard and weird in the trailer. It is an irony that he was cast as the "young Bond" at the start of his career but now looks ancient compared to the other Bonds at the same age. He looks like a grandpa next to the new Q and the Bond girls.

Arguably the best actor ever to play the role, the most physical the only "different" interpretation of the role since the wonderful Sean Connery. Anyone who thinks "he looks old" is mistaking "old" for "weathered." Look at that body, for Christ sakes. Only Connery in "Dr. No" even comes close. Best in action scenes. No, he's not as "pretty" but he looks like a stone cold killer who is searching for his humanity, a perfectly reasonable interpretation and ABSOLUTELY in line with Fleming's novels.
I read them all, and he may not be someone's fantasy of a man who can do Bond's job and not have his soul torn out, but Fleming's hard-smoking, hard-drinking, nihilistic borderline burnout who masks his pain with meaningless sex and an edge-of-destruction lifestyle..? Wow. For the very first time they're giving us a peek behind the mask, and it freaks out the children. Fine. Go away, go to sleep and let the grown-ups enjoy. They'll cycle back around to some man-boy in a tuxedo with a jet-pack soon enough, and then you can fantasize once again. As for me: thank you for the adult entertainment.

Cubby Broccoli was quoted saying: "there is no nudity in Bond movies. Only in Bond movie title sequences."
They were specifically crafted as "sex and sadism for the whole family" which is why they've lasted 50 years.

Actually the 'Mummy' comment is in reference to Ian Fleming calling his mother M when he was growing up. Apparently she was a very strict and authoritarian figure. So Fleming decided to call Bond's boss M in the books in reference to that.
They make fun of M being Bond's mother in Quantum as well.

Dude, you're 40 years too late on that one. 41 to be exact. Diamonds are forever did that in 1971. And the book came out in '56.
And the black villian in Live and Let Die (the book version), Mr. Big, is the scariest villian of all the Fleming books in my opinion.
Fleming was so far ahead of his time people still don't realize it yet.
And to add to what someone else above said, you guys complaining about Craig being too old or ugly seriously do need to come out of the closet.
I guess I didn't notice how ugly Daniel Craig was because I was too busy rubbing one out while staring at Eva Green's magnificent rack.

Yes, but it's only been four years since QOS, which is probably why Craig's aging is so startling. Christian Bale also just returned from a four year delay, yet (ironically) doesn't appear to have aged nearly enough for a storyline set a decade later.
You're right about people aging at different rates, but that doesn't mean it's somehow off-limits for discussion. Craig is portraying Bond in a visual medium, so it's obviously a factor people will critique.
No one has a problem talking about the former Bonds this way- or objectively citing the point at which they began to show signs of age-related decline- so I see no problem with subjecting Craig to the same level of scrutiny.
It's an issue that even Craig has acknowledged many times over the past few years. One of his first interviews for Skyfall started with him joking about how Bond was "much older". He's also frequently implied that Bond is a role he will soon be too old for. Such remarks always struck me as odd since, at the time, Craig was still the youngest Bond since Lazenby.

Fleming's Bond was a pro doing a pro's job. Being a spy meant that he occasionally had to rough up and kill people, so he did; but, he never relished doing it. It was just part of his job. The books went out of their way to make that point.
As for the fast living - drinking, seducing, gambling - it was Bond's quite rational decision to live every moment like it was his last, because under the circumstances every minute could be his last one. The books and early movies revelled in the high life, which was a huge part of their allure to audiences.
The movie versions of James Bond do tend to reflect the era they were made in - Connery the Cold War pro, Moore the suave seventies swinger, Dalton the cold 80's avenger, etc. So what does it say about modern times and fans that Bond is now presented as a nihilistic borderline burnout with people cheering him on to be as ugly, crude, and destructive as possible?

As the books went on, Bond was less and less ready for action, M more concerned. By the time OHMSS came around and Bond was sent to Japan in "You Only Live Twice" I was wondering if he could really hold it together. Lost his memory, wandered into a Russian embassy and was brainwashed and sent to kill M. By the time of the last novel, "The Man With the Golden Gun" there was genuine fear for Bond in his duel with Scaramanga. Fleming died before he could finish the book, but that would seem the direction. The fact is that men who do jobs like that find that it takes a toll on them: drinking, smoking, self-destructive behavior. What do you think their life expectancy was? That's the reality of the job, and Fleming knew it. Bond was never going to die of old age, even if he retired from the service. I stand by my statement. I grant your right to disagree, but mine was not a "modern" interpretation--it was contemporary with the books themselves. I was reading the last of them when they were first published.

You mean "aspersions." And you're the first person I've heard refer to that torture scene as "gay." It was in the original book, and both Le Chiffre and Bond were certainly presented as heterosexual, so I think that's mostly in your head.

The shaky camera, too close action style did not begin with the Bourne movies. Go back and watch Gladiator and Hannibal again. Ridley Scott took the idea of the shaky camera action from that one scene in Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan and began applying it to all of his action scenes in Gladiator and then Hannibal.

No need to take my word for it, re-watch the scene sometime.
This is the first time you've ever heard anyone point that out? Where have you been hiding? Where were you when the movie came out? That was hardly an original observation I made.

It's true Fleming's Bond was frequently out of shape (ie. Thunderball; You Only Live Twice; The Man With The Golden Gun), which was an inevitable side effect of his disillusioned and decadent lifestyle.
This is actually one reason I never cared for Craig's decision to portray Bond as a bulked-up gym rat. For one, it makes no sense that he would have the time or inclination to take such good care of himself. It's a bit like when Arnold tried to turn himself into an Everyman. (There's that scene in End of Days where we're meant to believe he drinks, chain-smokes, and survives on cold pizza, yet he's obviously in great shape.)
Of course, I realize Craig was physically too small to convincingly play Bond otherwise, but that just makes me wish they had gone with someone like Clive Owen or Henry Cavill. Neither man was my preferred choice at the time, but in hindsight, both would've been a good fit for the character as written.

Bond wasn't some quasi-sane barely functional derelict. He was a mature intelligent man who repeatedly performed his duties to completion in spite of the toll it took on him personally to do it. That's the very definition of a consummate professional.
The common themes of both You Only Live Twice and The Man with the Golden Gun are redemption and rebirth. As in the redemption and rebirth of James Bond following, first the grief of having his bride murdered on their wedding day, and second of the amnesia and enemy brainwashing he suffered after completing his mission in You Only Live Twice. Neither of these are stories of a man who is falling apart, they are stories of a man who is overcoming adversity to regain his old self again. Bond starts out both books damaged and heals himself while completing the mission. Quite the opposite of what you claim.
Fleming was in no way expounding on how spies eventually burn out, anyway. By the time he was writing the last couple of James Bond books in real life Fleming was suffering from failing health and decided to make his literary counterpart suffer along with him. This has long been well known.
You are free of course to like and enjoy psycho inhuman James Bond as he currently inhabits the screen, but that Bond doesn't resemble the Bond Fleming wrote about in the novels. It is a modern reimagining of the character to fit the times.

instead of your dads' balls.
more lame haters in here. This site is jumping the Shark and landing in a nuked fridge.
You find these trailers so offensive? So put it on the line - if the movie turns out to be good (by general consensus, by rotten tomatoes.. whatever) then you agree to get off the site.
So stand up and be counted instead of being dishonorable haters of every movie, trailer, script, score, director, casting note, plot point, camera angle, steadycam, 3D....
Place your bets - say either "Awesome" or "will suck" and agree to be banned from the site if you are wrong.
I like what I see. Stuart Smalley not with standing. A scar and darker hair and Craig would be nearly the definitive Bond already with his tone coming close to Fleming's novels.

I honestly think you are both correct in your points regarding Bond's professionalism versus his battle scars as the series progressed.
I think he was presented well after whatever growing pains he had as an agent and a killer. See Pearson's "biography" of Bond for that developmental phase.
but I do think he shed his invincibility and professionalism a bit with every round of torture and personal loss. He hunted Blofeld, SMERSH and Spectre with a personal as well as professional vendetta. As opposed to the indestructible action hero we see so much of today, he got hurt emotionally and physically.
Craig's Bond is part due to Bourne and MI:'s action sensibilities but also to the pervasive reboot notion that we must have some form of origin (Amazing Spider-man anyone?) in every reboot.
The sense of purpose, coolness in the face of having to maim/kill for his duty, and openness to going rogue I think are well in keeping with the spirit of Fleming's Bond. If anything is missing, it's the callous user approach to women that actually made Teresa/Tracy Bond's death so strong - and probably grew in part from losing his parents and Vesper's death
( he also visits Vesper's grave and reflects on her in the later novels)

That part of your post really impressed me ... till I read the one you made right above it.
Agreeing to a self-ban based on some 'majority rules' definition of whether a movie is any good or not isn't just silly, it is vile.
By extension, nobody finding fault with a Cameron picture would ever be able to bitch ever again, since they are pretty much guaranteed to open so big that the majority -- read: sheep who obey marketing directives -- are going to be drooling over them in large numbers, regardless of the quality of the work (I probably should exempt myself from that one, since I haven't gotten through a whole Cameron movie after TRUE LIES.)
In fact CASINO ROYALE would be an even better example. The whole damned world seems to have mistaken it for a competent movie when in fact the casting and characterization are largely at odds with source material. Moreover, audiences seeing this as a SMART movie have been breathing too much gas in from an Aston-Martin's smoke ejector, as the gimmick plot revolving around getting all your clues off dead professional spy folks cellphones is about as flatlined a notion as you can find outside of a Moore Bond flick.
If your consensus was based on INFORMED opinions as opposed to 'mob rule,' THEN maybe this self-ban thing could possibly work in some fashion. But as presented, it just sounds like a better-written version of the put-up-or-shut-up sniping I associate with drooling sycophants on
trekbbs.
I love Pearson's bio of 007 bigtime. They'd've done better to license bits from that than to present Bond as Maverick/TopGun/HotHead, especially casting 10-15 years too old for that to work.